by
ScienceDave | September 26, 2007 at 08:54 am
728 views | 22 Recommendations |
6 comments
I've
previously covered how creationists, under the guise of ID theory, (purposely) misuse scientific information as a means to their ends. However, I recently came across a youtube video "
Peanut Butter Creationists" that takes this to an entirely new level - they aren't even trying!
And I quote, "Life from non-life, apart from God's direct intervention, is a fairy tail. Despite this obvious truth..."
At least the ID people attempt to be (pseudo)scientific. Take the
banana theory as an example. A banana was perfectly designed for the human hand (it even has a tab like a soda can!), thus proving beyond any inkling of doubt that: a) God exists; and b) God created the universe perfectly for life to exist. There's no other logical explanation (
co-evolution aside, of course)!
What I find incredibly interesting is the following: science in no way can prove God does or does not exist for the same reason you cannot measure something outside of a box while you are confined within it's walls. Yet, creationists time and time again attack the very nature of science, referring to scientific theory as "dogma" and scientists as "believers".
Yes, there are likely plenty of scientists who fall into this category - blindly accepting theory as fact. However, the institution that is the scientific method intrinsically does not - it requires the experimenter to observe, and necessarily change their initial hypothesis according to their observations.
So, why not attack scientists instead of science?
I think for two reasons: a) we have no science-poster boy (perhaps Dawkins, but he is often attacked for his own attacks on theists); and b) science is in diametrically opposed to faith, the ultimate foundation of any personal or organized religion.
What is faith? From
Webster's (I've omitted the definition concerning loyalty):
: belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
- on faith : without question
"Proof", "without question" - ideas that are not associated with the scientific method, yet ones that are used every day in religious prayer and study. It's no surprise, then, that science receive such flack from hardline religious groups - science attempts to explain (and, likely underpin the very nature of religious teachings on) the origin of existence.
Again, just as scientists cannot prove God does not exist, it is equally true that scientists cannot prove God does exist - that is a philosophical question for old white men in whiter robes. However, scientists can theorize on the rot cause of observations beyond mystic and dogmatic preaching.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 09:24 on September 26th, 2007
ScienceDave, seems to me the spin these folks put on the reality is shocking in it's blatant disregard for any other viable explanation on the facts.
at 09:45 on September 26th, 2007
Great editorial Dave. I'm all for someone explaining or debunking things in a simle way -but there is some missing logic in the argument for the peanut butter theory. Heck, I think "because I believe it to be so." is a more respectable argument than opening a jar of peanut butter.
Good stuff.
at 10:10 on September 26th, 2007
at 10:41 on September 26th, 2007
ScienceDave, your insight is, as always, extremely valuable...I think you should rename your column "Things That Make Kaitlin Go Hmmm..."
at 11:17 on September 26th, 2007
Your piece is very unstructured and hard to follow. I still dont understand what you are trying to say. I'm also puzzled why it has received so many 'good stuffs' and made it to the top story spot (the reason I clicked thru in the first place).
at 01:44 on September 27th, 2007
You overlook one point. Faith and faith in God, for the believers, is
a non-arguable system. Your arguments comes from your own system, as a
'believer's in scientific inquiry, proof and explanation which is an
arguable system. Now the Creationist and ID men made one mistake, they
tried to apply 'scientific arguments' to prove their faith, which is
nonsense because it has already been 'proved' in the Holy Books. Faith
and science until now are incompatible. The 'peanut butter' is a good
example for this, and upsets you by their calling scientists believers
and science dogma...One last word, I am on your side.